When Rajasthan High Court Chief Justice narrowly evaded ‘digital arrest'
Hearing of a Suo Motu case on tackling digital arrest scams, the CJ reportedly said in oral remarks that he too once received a video call where the person was in uniform. The CJ said that he then immediately handed over the phone to the registrar, who then addressed the matter.
In January, a bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand had taken Suo Motu cognizance of scams, terming the rise in cyber-crimes and digital arrest as 'alarming,' while noting that thousands of innocent people have been trapped in it, losing their hard-earned money, and also their lives in some instances.
The CJ-led double bench was hearing the matter Monday when the CJ made the remarks. The Centre and the state, apart from the National Cyber Forensic Laboratory (Investigation and Evidence), Reserve Bank of India, and National Payment Corporation of India, among others, have been made party in the case.
In January, Justice Dhand had said that in the age of 'rapid digital evolution, digital arrest scams have emerged as one of the most insidious forms of cybercrime,' highlighting that 'digital arrest' has no legal standing in India. Digital arrest represents a highly sophisticated scam that can snare even well-educated individuals.'
He had highlighted international responses to digital arrest scams, including legislation and regulatory measures. For instance, Australia has enacted laws that focus on enhancing penalties for identity theft and cybercrime. When it comes to public awareness campaigns, he noted that the US had launched extensive campaigns through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Internet Crime Complaint Centre.
Next, Justice Dhand had said that collaborative efforts between governmental agencies and private companies is essential for combating digital scams effectively.
Citing Singapore, he had said that it has implemented Al-driven solutions powered by the Cyber Security Agency (CSA) to detect and block scam calls before they reach potential victims. Citing Canada, he had said that it has deployed an Anti-Fraud Centre, which provides a toll-free hotline for reporting scams, enabling 'victims to report incidents swiftly, allowing authorities to track scam trends and identify hotspots.' He had said that international cooperation can also help curb digital scams.
Rajasthan too has also taken several steps to curb cyber-crime, including 'Operation Anti-Virus', a collaboration between the Rajasthan Police, the Government of India, and the Department of Telecommunications.
The state has also set up the Centre for Cyber Security at the Sardar Patel University of Police at Jodhpur, with the aim of developing an information security roadmap for the state.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
India Today
3 hours ago
- India Today
Cannabis seeds, leaves not ganja: Andhra Pradesh High Court weeds out confusion
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that seeds and leaves of the cannabis plant do not fall under the legal definition of 'ganja' as outlined in the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, a significant ruling, the single bench of Justice K Sreenivasa Reddy observed that under the provisions of the Act, only the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant constitute 'ganja' and are thus subject to legal prohibition. The court made this observation while granting bail to two individuals who had been arrested in connection with the possession of cannabis leaves and ruling stated, 'The seeds and leaves of the cannabis plant, in the absence of the flowering or fruiting tops, do not fall within the definition of ganja under Section 2(iii)(b) of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.' The case was based on the arrest of the petitioners under provisions of the Act for allegedly being in possession of over 1.5 kilograms of what was reported as ganja. Upon examination of the material seized, the petitioners' counsel argued that the substance consisted only of seeds and leaves, and not of the prohibited flowering or fruiting parts. The counsel further relied on previous judgments that clarified the definition of ganja under the court concurred with the argument and said that there was no material on record to show that the seized substance contained flowering or fruiting tops. In such a scenario, the seizure did not attract the penal provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the High Court granted bail to the judgment is expected to have implications for law enforcement practices and could potentially impact pending cases where the seizure consists solely of cannabis seeds or leaves without the flowering Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985, provides the legal framework for controlling and regulating operations relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances in India. Section 2(iii)(b) of the Act defines ganja specifically as 'the flowering or fruiting tops of the cannabis plant (excluding the seeds and leaves when not accompanied by the tops).'Justice Reddy's ruling reinforces this distinction and reiterates the legislative intent to criminalise only the possession and trade of the intoxicating parts of the plant. - EndsMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Andhra Pradesh
News18
3 hours ago
- News18
'Saying I Love You Not Sexual Harassment Unless…' Bombay HC Acquits Man Under POCSO
The court concluded that the minor status alone could not attract POCSO provisions without fulfilling other statutory requirements like sexual intent and physical contact The Nagpur bench of the Bombay High Court has acquitted a man convicted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO), holding that mere expression of romantic interest without sexual intent does not amount to sexual harassment under the law. Justice Urmila Joshi-Phalke, while setting aside the trial court's conviction under Section 354-A(i) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Section 8 of the POCSO Act, observed, 'Words expressed 'I Love You' would not by itself amount to 'sexual intent' as contemplated by the legislature. There should be something more which must suggest that the real intention is to drag in the angle of sex, if the words uttered are to be taken as conveying sexual intent." While the court did accept the validity of the victim's birth certificate, confirming she was a minor (born on May 12, 1999), it concluded that the minor status alone could not attract POCSO provisions without fulfilling other statutory requirements like sexual intent and physical contact. 'Admittedly, intention is inner compartment of mind of that person and has to be determined from surrounding facts and circumstances. If somebody says that he is in love with another person or expresses his feelings itself would not amount to an intent showing some sort of his sexual intention. What constitutes such sexuality or sexual intent and what is not, is a question of fact," the court added. Background of the Case The case arose out of a complaint by a 17-year-old girl, a student of Class 11, who alleged that on October 23, 2015, while returning home with her cousin, the accused Ravindra Narete approached her on a motorcycle near an agricultural field in Katol, Nagpur district. He allegedly caught her hand, refused to let her go until she disclosed her name, and said 'I love you." The FIR was registered the same day, attracting charges under Sections 354-A(i) and 354-D(1)(i) of the IPC and Section 8 of the POCSO Act. The trial court had convicted the appellant and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for three years along with a fine of Rs 5,000. Rationale by the Court On Section 354-A IPC (sexual harassment), the court emphasised that: 'The expression sexual intent is a question of fact and it is to be determined on the basis of the evidence. If somebody says that he is in love with another person or expresses his feelings itself would not amount to an 'intent' showing some sort of his sexual intention." Further, referring to the POCSO charge under Section 8 (punishing sexual assault), the court noted that Section 7 requires proof of physical contact with sexual intent involving specific body parts or any other act of sexual intent. The court held that: 'There is no evidence on record showing that there was any gesture in the nature of eye expression or body language of the accused… Utterances in question have not been made repeatedly, but it was made only once." The court also pointed out that the trial judge failed to appreciate the correct definition of 'sexual assault" under POCSO and erred in convicting the appellant without evidence showing sexual intent. First Published: July 02, 2025, 13:52 IST
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
With Kerala's new DGP appointment, why the 1994 Koothuparamba firing is being recalled
The appointment of 1991-batch IPS officer Ravada Chandrasekhar as the new DGP and the state police chief on Monday (June 30) has brought back the 1994 police firing incident at Koothuparamba, in Kannur, into focus. Five young CPI(M) men were killed in the firing, and another man, whom the party called a 'living martyr', became bedridden and died last year. In 1998, the CPI(M)-led government registered a murder case against Chandrasekhar, who was one of the police officers in the dock at the time. In 1994, when the Congress-led United Democratic Front (UDF) government was in power in Kerala, Marxist rebel leader MV Raghavan, who had formed the Communist Marxist Party (CMP) after being ousted from CPI(M), was the Cooperation Minister. Raghavan had started a new medical college in Kannur, under the cooperatives sector, the first such medical college in India at the time. However, the CPI(M) youth wing, the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI), had long been on the warpath against the idea of a self-financing medical college. It argued that the model would lead to the commercialisation of higher education in Kerala and make it inaccessible to the public. On November 25, 1994, when Raghavan reached Koothuparamba to inaugurate a bank branch, DYFI activists black flagged and waylaid him. The melee resulted in police firing on DYFI workers, killing five of them. An injured victim named Pushpan was bedridden for three decades. The 1991-batch IPS officer was appointed as the assistant superintendent of police for the Thalassery sub-division, which includes Koothuparamba, two days before the firing. He was also present in Koothuparamba on that day. The Justice Padmanabhan Nair commission, which probed the incident, said of Chandrasekhar, 'He had acted in compliance with the orders of the executive magistrate. However, the ASP ought to have exercised discretion vested with him carefully.'' Acting on the commission report, the CPI(M) government in 1997 directed police to register a murder case against Raghavan, Deputy SP Hakeem Bathery and executive magistrate T T Antony. The next year, then-DIG Jacob Punnose submitted a report to the court, listing Chandrasekhar as an accused in the case. Subsequently, Chandrasekhar, who was then SP, was placed under suspension in November 1998, but was later reinstated. The officer petitioned the High Court over the FIR against him. It was later quashed, and the decision was also upheld by the Supreme Court when the CPI(M) government challenged the HC order. Why is the CPI(M) facing heat over Chandrasekhar's appointment? Koothuparamba victims are among the CPI(M)'s most celebrated martyrs, and the incident is often projected as a symbol of the fighting spirit of the cadres. As a result, the CPI(M) appointing an officer who was once blamed for the killing of party workers has become a political issue. The Congress has also criticised the decision. The CPI(M) state secretary, M V Govindan, said the Union Government (through the UPSC) had suggested three names and the state had to pick one among them. 'The appointment is not based on any clean chit given by the party. The court had quashed the case against Chandrasekhar, who was an alleged accused in the case. It was the UDF regime that killed our five comrades. They (the UDF) now need not come as advocates of the martyrs,'' said Govindan. Three decades since the firing, the CPI(M) has seen various shifts. A CMP faction founded by MV Raghavan was eventually merged with the CPI(M) in 2019. Further, the CPI(M) has embraced Raghavan's son, MV Nikesh Kumar, who is now a district committee member of the party in Kannur. Further, the Koothuparamba agitation was against the commercialisation of professional education in Kerala. In the years since then, the CPI(M) has itself helped establish self-financing colleges. On March 25 this year, the Kerala assembly passed a draft Bill that will now allow entry to private universities in the state. At every such policy shift, Opposition leaders remind the CPI(M) about the Koothuparamba firing.
